I may be adding something that has already been posted, because I just discovered this site and don't know how to operate it properly.
Here's a critical point about fair use: It's not a right; it's a legal DEFENSE. You can point out to someone that your use may be fair, but, that's just your opinion. To assert your right with legal effect, you must be in court. In order to be in court, you must be under suit for copyright infringement. You could claim pauperis per, meaning that you can't afford an attorney and want to represent yourself, but this is not a good idea. If you are being sued by a big company, they won't back down easily. Legal costs will run to tens of thousands of dollars. Hundreds of thousands, in some cases. So ya gotta ask yerself, Do ya feel lucky?
COMMISSIONED WORKS: Absent a written contract, work you do for someone else in your own studio will be considered a commissioned work, and you will own the copyright, the same as if you have a contract for a commissioned work. But BIG CAUTION. The ninth-circuit court of appeals has come up with a spoiler: The Doctrine of Implied Non-Exclusive License. This means that if you and the commissioning party intended to have your work used commercially by the commissioning party, that party has the right to use your work without paying you the agreed amount(at least under copyright law). Ironically, you will still have a valid copyright and can resell the work to others. I know this sounds crazy. It also seems unethical to sell to someone else a work you created specifically for a particular client. However, that's the law, at least within the jurisdiction of the ninth circuit. You can trust me on this because I was the plaintiff in the case that established this precedent, back in the 1980s. Also the court does not take into consideration the cost of creating the work. If you have a creative fee of, say, $250 dollars, and a 'manufacturing' cost of $1,000 (such as a foundry fee for casting bronze), and if the client pays $700 dollars in progress payments, The court can add the concept of "equitable estopple." This means that the client, having paid the greater part of the agreed price has an overriding equity in your work. The result is that, not only do you not get your creative fee or profit, but you will be out of pocket $300 (in the example I'm using), plus attorney's fees and court costs
fair use, plus a point about commissioned works
Here's a critical point about fair use: It's not a right; it's a legal DEFENSE. You can point out to someone that your use may be fair, but, that's just your opinion. To assert your right with legal effect, you must be in court. In order to be in court, you must be under suit for copyright infringement. You could claim pauperis per, meaning that you can't afford an attorney and want to represent yourself, but this is not a good idea. If you are being sued by a big company, they won't back down easily. Legal costs will run to tens of thousands of dollars. Hundreds of thousands, in some cases. So ya gotta ask yerself, Do ya feel lucky?
COMMISSIONED WORKS: Absent a written contract, work you do for someone else in your own studio will be considered a commissioned work, and you will own the copyright, the same as if you have a contract for a commissioned work. But BIG CAUTION. The ninth-circuit court of appeals has come up with a spoiler: The Doctrine of Implied Non-Exclusive License. This means that if you and the commissioning party intended to have your work used commercially by the commissioning party, that party has the right to use your work without paying you the agreed amount(at least under copyright law). Ironically, you will still have a valid copyright and can resell the work to others. I know this sounds crazy. It also seems unethical to sell to someone else a work you created specifically for a particular client. However, that's the law, at least within the jurisdiction of the ninth circuit. You can trust me on this because I was the plaintiff in the case that established this precedent, back in the 1980s. Also the court does not take into consideration the cost of creating the work. If you have a creative fee of, say, $250 dollars, and a 'manufacturing' cost of $1,000 (such as a foundry fee for casting bronze), and if the client pays $700 dollars in progress payments, The court can add the concept of "equitable estopple." This means that the client, having paid the greater part of the agreed price has an overriding equity in your work. The result is that, not only do you not get your creative fee or profit, but you will be out of pocket $300 (in the example I'm using), plus attorney's fees and court costs